September 7, 2004

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence.

Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the United States.

It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White. And good morning and welcome to The Dividing Line. It is the 7th of September already, 1999, yes. We went back into our archives and pulled out a five-year-old program.

Why not? How many would really actually know? I don't know. Anyway, those of you who have been following the saga on my blog know that since we were last together, some interesting developments have taken place, specifically in regards to a series of articles that I began in the month of July.

And I began those articles because a pastor on Long Island had sat down with me and we had worked through a certain section of Dr. Mark Seyfried's book, Christ, Our Righteousness. And he had indicated this book had been recommended to him as a response to New Perspectivism.

He is a pastor who wants to remain aware of what's going on theologically around him, even though as a busy pastor, it is difficult to do that. And I was very respectful and appreciative of his attitude in wanting to do that.

And I said, but you know, I get to the end of the book and it sounds a little bit like what's being said here is telling me that the doctrine of imputation is not really important. In fact, it sounds like he's saying that it's something we shouldn't believe in and that it's just simply a development of later Protestant orthodoxy, an understandable development, but one that certainly is not biblical, it's not Pauline, it's not something that you would want to preach and teach if what you want to preach and teach is what the Bible actually teaches.

And so when I got back from Long Island, I thought, well, you know, if that's the case with one pastor there, there may be other pastors who have encountered the same material. And so I took the time to begin briefly.

And if you've read the blog, and I would encourage you to do so, we've put all of the articles in one place that you can read them easily enough. Very respectfully, very much focused upon a theological issue and not an individual.

I do not know Mark Seyfried. I don't know him. I've never met him, never heard him speak. But this is a book that was published in the year 2000. It has been out for four years. It is one of only a small number of books relevant to this particular subject.

And as a result, I felt that it's perfectly proper to review what has been in print, has not been pulled from print, has not been, to my knowledge, in any way, shape, or form, recanted, denounced. It is still available.

You can pick it up online. You can buy it. In fact, if anything, I have probably single-handedly resulted in a renaissance of purchases of the book. And so I saw absolutely no personal reason whatsoever to not engage in this discussion.

I have nothing against Dr. Seyfried. I don't know the man. This is not a personal issue. This has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with any individuals at all. This is simply a question of, can we have any theological discussion any longer in a postmodern society and in a postmodern church?

If I write a book, if I write The Potter's Freedom, then I'm putting what I'm saying out there. Somebody else has the right, if someone is a member, a pastor, in an Arminian church, they have the right to disagree with me.

They have a right to say, I'm wrong. They have a right to quote me and say, I disagree and here's why. Now, our almost universal experience has been that instead of quoting me and then going to exegesis of scripture, what you do is you get quotations followed by traditions, followed by, well, if that's true, then this person is saying this over here and all the rest of this stuff.

We don't get exegetical responses. But be that as it may, if I put it out there, then the fact of the matter is that it can be reviewed. And I don't expect someone to have to call me on the phone before they review my book.

If I've put it in print, if I can't write it with enough clarity that an average person of average intelligence can understand what it's saying, that's my problem. Now, that doesn't mean that misrepresenting me is right, but the fact of the matter is, if you publish something and it's out there for that period of time, then, you know, that means you stand by what you said and that what you said is clear enough to understand.

And so, what we did, and those of you who have read the blogs know, we quoted extensively. Extensively. So, I'm going to quote some things, and I'm going to read some things here, just to refresh your memory.

Some of you may not take the time to read the blog, and that's certainly your prerogative. Certainly make this program a little more understandable if you did. But, Dr. Seifert writes on page 171,. Consequently, it is necessary to draw out some of the distinctions I would wish to maintain and to clarify the relationships of these views to traditional Protestant understandings of justification.

That's page 171, and it sounds to me like he is, in essence, contrasting his views, his emphases, over against traditional Protestant understandings of justification. What other words would mean that?

I don't know, but that sounds like what he's saying. And then as we read through what he says, that seems to be exactly what he is saying. On pages 173 through 174 we read,. And it is fair to say that something of the Christ-centered understanding of justification, which Luther and Calvin grasped, was lost in subsequent Protestant thought, where justification came to be defined in terms of the believer and not in terms of Christ.

It is worth observing that Paul never speaks of Christ's righteousness as imputed to believers, as became standard in Protestantism. Well, that should certainly cause a person to stop and go,. What do you mean by that?

It sounds, by putting that sentence after the previous sentence, as if he believes the idea of Christ's righteousness as imputed to believers removes the focus of justification from Christ and puts it on believers.

Well, we certainly have made... There it is! Our standard during... Yes, it is our standard during the dividing line phone call from a 480 number. There we go. And we will just go from there. Someone goes, Why'd you turn that off?

Because then I miss important calls right afterwards because I'm dumb. That's what everybody's telling me. Anyway, sounds like that's what he said. That he's contrasting these two different views, and the standard in Protestantism is not what he's holding to, and he's not holding to this idea of imputation.

Ah, but maybe, maybe... Mr. Pierce, would you like to... Someone has a real important message for me here. Maybe, I guess, I don't know. Maybe you can chat with them there for a second. This is a professional program, people.

I want you to understand this. We continue on. The common... Quoting, once again, very important stuff here. 174 -175. The common Protestant formulation of justification as the non -imputation of sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness is understandable as a way of setting forth justification as a forensic reality in distinction from the tridentine claim that an infused, imparted, or inherent righteousness had to be added to the grace of forgiveness.

Well, that makes sense. Ah, but notice what's being said. The common Protestant formulation of justification, which we just saw was not what he's putting forth. He says it's understandable. It's understandable in opposition to Rome.

Okay? However, he then says, it nevertheless treats the justifying verdict of God as an immediate and isolated gift. The justification of the believer is thereby separated from the justification of God in his wrath against us.

Salvation is then portioned out so one possesses it piecemeal. Now, I don't know about you, but none of those sentences sound good. None of those sentences sound like that means this is something we're supposed to believe.

Okay? It nevertheless treats the justifying verdict of God as an immediate and isolated gift. I don't believe it does. The justification of the believer is thereby separated from the justification of God in his wrath against us.

I have no idea why anybody would believe that. Salvation is then portioned out so one possesses it piecemeal. Really? Hmm. It is held together as a series of ideas. Wow, I've heard that one before. Justification, sanctification, glorification, rather than being grasped by faith as the comprehensive act of God in Christ.

Really? So if you believe in imputation, then you believe as in a series of ideas, even though all those words are used by Scripture. So if you discuss any one of those words, then you somehow are not grasping by faith the comprehensive act of God in Christ?

Don't see a reason why that is. Don't see a reason why we should allow, and I think we need to recognize this, it seems the author here is saying that people like B .B. Warfield and Hodge and others who focused upon these things, who would be representative of the standard in Protestantism, were not grasping by faith the comprehensive act of God in Christ.

That's a fairly major assertion that I don't see any foundation being given to here. It goes on, The insistence that the sanctification of the believer always accompanies justification does not fully overcome this deficiency.

Indeed, Protestant confessions sometimes take on the appearance of unreality at this point because they speak of believers in themselves. And there's a footnote provided here which refers us, at least now we'll have an idea of what Dr. Seifried means about Protestant orthodoxy because it's a reference to the Heidelberg Catechism, question 60, answer to question 60.

So there is, well just a finished quote, Once one shifts away from Paul's frame of reference in Christ to one located in the believer, the continuing demand of faith, hope, and love is obscured. Now it sounds to me again, and we know at least one of the most brilliant scholars in all the world, at least in his thinking, has already indicated that I'm just too dull to understand these things, I'm too dumb to understand these things, just lack the mental acumen to follow this type of deep discussion.

But it sounds to me anyways, like what is being said is that in Protestant orthodoxy, in the common Protestant formulation of justification, that's the start of the quote, that there is a shifting away from Paul's frame of reference in Christ to one located in the believer, and it's not a good thing, it's a bad thing.

Because it says the continuing demand of faith, hope, and love is obscured. So, that seems to be what he's saying. But there is more, I quoted more. By virtue of their extrinsic character and finality, Christ's cross and resurrection exclude the notions of an inherent righteousness and progress and justification which Protestant divines were concerned to avoid.

That's quite true. Very, very true. Dr. Seyfried is very focused upon the idea of the extrinsic, external, final nature of the cross and resurrection. Quite true. Then again, so was B .B. Warfield and Charles Hodge and everybody else.

But notice what comes afterwards. As a result, there is no need to multiply entities within justification as Protestant orthodoxy did when it added the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.

Now, that's one of the key citations, in my opinion. I want to read it again. As a result, there is no need to multiply entities within justification as Protestant orthodoxy did when it added the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.

Now, I don't know about you, but once again, this dull Arizona boy gets the idea that what's being said here is that Paul did not view the imputation of Christ's righteousness as being relevant to the forgiveness of sins.

It sounds like there was a needless multiplication of entities within justification done by Protestant orthodoxy by adding this concept of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the forgiveness of sins.

That seems to be what the sentence is saying. When Paul speaks of justification as the forgiveness of sins, he has in view the whole of justification, the resurrection from the dead, not merely an erasure of our failures, which must be supplemented by an imputed righteousness.

Imputed is in quotes. Now, I just mentioned in passing the fact that it doesn't sound to me like the writer here believes in the imputed righteousness of Christ. It would be hard for me to hear someone say, well, this is a doctrine that was added by later Protestant orthodoxy, but I believe it.

I believe it. It's added by later Protestant orthodoxy, and it's unnecessary. In fact, I'm going to say that it bruises the nerve which runs between justification and obedience, and all that stuff, but I believe it.

I'm sorry, I have a hard time with that. You know, that's like saying, well, you know, the doctrine of the Trinity is a much later development, and it wasn't believed by the apostles, and it's unnecessary, and there's lots of dangers to it, but I believe it.

I'm passionate about it. I have a hard time with that. That doesn't make any sense, does it? We continue on. Likewise, the further distinction which some Protestants made between the imputation of Christ's active righteousness in fulfilling the law, and his passive obedience in dying on the cross, is unnecessary and misleading.

This view, too, arose from a failure to grasp that Christ's work represents the prolepsis of the final judgment and the entrance of the age to come. Now, once again, it sounds to me like this writer does not believe in the active and passive obedience of Christ.

In fact, he says it's unnecessary and misleading. It's based upon a failure to grasp something about Christ's work. And interestingly enough, what has resulted in the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, putting out a statement responding to my blog articles, well, actually, not even mentioning my blog articles, but just simply defending Mark Seyfried, is the fact that I took that line, that statement, that Christ's active and passive obedience is unnecessary, misleading, based upon a failure.

I took that line, and then I went to Dr. James Boyce. And I quoted Dr. Boyce. And I quoted Dr. Boyce directly from page 399 of his Abstract and Systematic Theology. And I specifically provided his own words because, you see, Dr. Boyce was the founder of Southern Seminary and, as such, was very much involved in the writing of the abstract of theology that is the doctrinal norm of Southern Seminary.

And this is where, I guess, I just got in a tremendous amount of trouble. Because what I did is I compared what Dr. Boyce said. For example, he says,. Our justification is due also to the active obedience of Christ and not to passive obedience only.

Righteousness involves character, conduct, and action, even more than suffering endured as penalty. The sinlessness of Christ is, therefore, plainly taught, especially in connection with imputation. 2 Corinthians 5 .21.

The gracious salvation he brings is said to establish the law. He assures us that he came to fulfill the law. Matthew 5 .17. The obedience of Christ is not only contrasted with the disobedience of Adam, but is declared to be the means by which many shall be made righteous.

Romans 5 .19. It thus appears that the ground of justification is the whole meritorious work of Christ, not his sufferings and death only, but his obedience to and conformity with the divine law are involved in the justification which is attained by the believer.

The question is here sometimes asked how the active obedience of Christ can avail to us when he was himself a man and under the law and owed obedience personally on his own behalf. The answer to this is twofold, in each case depending upon the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God.

On the one hand, the position was one primarily assumed by the Son of God. He was under no obligation to become man. He was not and could not be made man without his own consent, and thus voluntarily coming under the law, his obedience would have merit to secure all the blessings connected to the covenant under which he assumed such relation.

But besides this, the fulfillment of the law would not simply be that fulfillment due by a mere man, which is all the law could demand of him on his own behalf, so that the merit secured is that due to the Son of God, thus as man rendering obedience to the law.

That merit is immeasurable and is available for all for whom he was the substitute. So I quoted that, and that sounds like Dr. Boyce, the founder of Southern Seminary, believed that the act of impassive obedience of Christ was not unnecessary, nor was it misleading.

Folks, those are facts. And if anyone's going to respond to what I've said, they've got to respond to those facts. There is nothing in the Southern Seminary statement that even mentions the act of impassive obedience of Christ.

I am not even convinced that everyone involved in the production of this statement even read what I wrote, even took the time to look at it. And here is the one sentence, here is the one sentence that evidently caused all the problem, and here's what it says.

It seems, after I quote what I just read to you from James Boyce, it seems then that what the abstract of principles meant by receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness by faith was significantly fuller than Seyfried's suggested understanding.

There it is! Now, will anyone debate that? I mean, if I hopped on a plane today and flew to Louisville, is there anyone, anyone who would actually debate that? Is there anyone who wants to say that Dr. James Boyce, in the abstract systematic theology, would have agreed with the statement that the act of impassive obedience of Christ is misleading and unnecessary and is based upon a failure to grasp the work of Christ as the prolepsis of God's judgment?

Would anyone defend that? Of course not. Of course not. There's no one who would. It's not even an arguable thing. So, why is this an issue? Certainly the great professors at Southern Seminary didn't allow this book to come out and not read it, did they?

Certainly there's got to have been discussions about this. I'm not the first one to have noticed these things. In fact, I quote in my response, John Piper, who is aware of this particular perspective and what is said within it.

I also cited Robert Gundry from his book, actually from his article in the Husband's Trier book, where he quotes Mark Seifert as supporting his view of denying the imputed righteousness of Christ. So, I'm a latecomer here.

I'm not blazing any trails here. I just took the time to try to discuss some of these things on a blog. That's all I did. So, we continue on with the quotations from Dr. Seifert, which don't get discussed in the response.

His passive obedience was the fulfillment of the law which condemned us. In Christ and in hope, the triumph over sin and death is ours here and now. It is not ours. We possess it only in faith. Is there anyone who believes in the imputed righteousness of Christ who would buy the idea, the suggested distinction, disjunction made here.

Disjunction is a better use of the term. That because we believe that we're justified by faith and that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, that this somehow becomes ours in the sense that it's not ours by faith?

That we get rid of faith? The misrepresentation of the historic Protestant position here by this writer is amazing, but no one seems to want to care about that. It just boggles my mind. I would think if we are passionate about these things, we'd go, wait a minute, you're saying that what I've believed all along is wrong here and here and here and here and here, but if we dare respond and say no it's not and here's why, that somehow we're being mean and nasty and attacking?

Ah, there's where the postmodernism comes in. Because you see in scholarship you can say anything you want, but if anyone responds and says, I think that's wrong. No, you're supposed to say, oh, well I would take a different view or I would see a different emphasis here.

That is now the way in which things are supposed to be done. You don't point out something and say, you know, that's not consistent with what's being said anywhere else because that makes you mean and nasty and things like that.

Continues on, in reducing, notice the word reducing, in reducing justification to a present possession of Christ's imputed righteousness, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience.

I ask once again, does it sound to you like the writer of those words has a passionate commitment to the belief in Christ's imputed righteousness? I continue on, it is not so much wrong, this is page 175 now, it is not so much wrong to use the expression the imputed righteousness of Christ as it is deficient.

Again, can you imagine someone saying, it's not so much wrong to use the expression the Trinity as it is deficient, but I believe it. No, of course not. You know, these words have meaning. You can't just sweep the words and their meaning away.

Paul, after all, speaks of the forgiveness of sins, of reconciliation to God, the gift of the Spirit, salvation, and so on. But his teaching on justification, notice Seifert basically wants to throw out the standard historic terms and their meaning and make justification a much broader concept than normal.

That can sometimes leave people going, what's going on there? But his teaching on justification is more comprehensive than any of these and provides the framework in which they are to be understood. Even where he speaks of salvation and not justification, the essential elements in the latter appear alongside the former.

If we fail to capture the sense of the whole, the pieces themselves lose their significance. It is better to say with Paul that our righteousness is found not in us, but in Christ, crucified and risen.

So it's better to speak of that than it is to speak of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Westminster Confession, and here's again where I sort of put up a little red flag, the Westminster Confession, that of my own institution, puts the matter nicely when it speaks of receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness by faith.

Well, that's why I pointed out that what the Westminster Confession meant by that and what the abstract means by that is so much more than what this writer means by that. If these words mean anything, none of these words were actually addressed.

Very quickly, because I want to get to some other aspects of this, the Protestant definition of justification, this comes no longer from 2000, this is now from 2004, the article that Dr. Seifert wrote for the justification book, the Husband's Trier justification book came out just a couple of weeks ago.

The Protestant definition of justification in terms of imputation is no mere description of biblical teaching, for which terminology is lacking in scripture, as is the case, for example, of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Here we are dealing in some measure with the replacement of the biblical categories with other ways of speaking. Now again, if words have meaning, if grammar is grammar and syntax is syntax, it sounds like what is being said there is that in some measure, who knows how much, but we can gather from what was written before, in some measure, by using terms of imputation, we are replacing biblical categories with other ways of speaking.

This development, he says, need not be regarded as deleterious and certainly has to be appreciated in its historical significance, but it is not without its dangers and shortcomings. Now, that's scholar speak.

That's scholar speak for saying, well, you know, it's understandable why Protestant divines did that, but in reality, you know, we need to understand it within its historical context. I mean, you know, we need to understand that there was a purpose for it after Trent, and, you know, we can understand why people were concerned about it, but it is not without its dangers and shortcomings.

What are those dangers and shortcomings? Well, it sounds like what he was saying earlier, bruises the nerve that runs from justification to obedience, unnecessary, misleading, and he continues on by saying, by construing divine justice within the framework of bare legal conceptions, and I, again, this is a matter of being consistent, I need some consistency here.

How many times over the past almost 15 years now have I heard a Roman Catholic apologist talk about bare legal conceptions in regards to justification? Have I refuted them? Yes. Have I responded to them?

Yes. Have I done so with passion? Yes. So what am I supposed to do when they're on my side and saying the same things? Am I supposed to clam up? Am I supposed to be politically correct? No. It says, by construing divine justice within the framework of bare legal conceptions, Protestant thought separated love from justice.

I reject that. That is wrong. It's an error. Am I wrong to say that? Is it wrong to defend what you've believed all along, especially when there's no basis for that? What was the motivation of the father toward the elect in sending the son to be the atonement for sin and their place, union with him, justification?

What is the motivation here? It's all love. There was no separation of love from justice. This is just wrong. It's an error. And no matter what it ends up costing, and believe me, it's going to cost us something.

I can't sit here and go, I wouldn't quite put it that way, but you know, we're all on the same side here, see, so we can't really say anything about it. Well, last week, a statement was posted. Actually, it wasn't posted.

It was installed on, but not linked to, but it's there on the Southern Seminary website. And it begins saying the following. In the summer of 2004, an internet site, that's me, I'm waving my hands over here, an internet site publicly charged Professor Mark A. Seyfried with holding views of justification that are outside the doctrinal parameters of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's abstract of principles on the doctrine of justification.

I immediately stop and say, excuse me, but I mentioned them once. I mentioned them in one article, and I've already read you the one sentence where I said, after quoting, and by the way, notice, it was about the act of impassive obedience of Christ.

That's what it was about. And I quoted Beuys, and I quoted Seyfried, and Beuys says, act of impassive obedience absolutely central to how we're made right with God. Seyfried says, unnecessary misleading based upon a failure to grasp something.

I don't know, it sounds like they're different views to me. And all I said was, it seems to me that what is found in those confessional statements is a much fuller understanding than that found in Professor Seyfried.

Am I the first person to have noticed that? Would anyone want to debate that? Of course not. But to make the citation, to just note it, is here identified as to publicly charge Professor Seyfried with holding views of justification outside the doctrinal parameters of the Southern Baptist Theological Center.

Folks, that ain't my job. That's the folks at Southern's job. That book had been out for four years. Okay, the book's causing confusion amongst pastors. I responded to it, nothing more. The statement says, because Southern Seminary takes seriously our responsibility for confessional fidelity, the administration thoroughly investigated the views and writings of Professor Seyfried.

That sounds to me like someone sat down with this book and sat down with those quotes, so that would tell me I'm going to hear responses, I'm going to hear explanations as to how you can identify imputation as something added by later Protestant orthodoxy, added by later Protestant divines, a Protestant concern that's unnecessary.

It's added to the gospel message. I'm going to hear an explanation of how that is consistent with the abstract theology, right? That's what I would assume. We can't just let these things pass by. This investigation included extensive interviews with Professor Seyfried, along with careful attention to his books and writings, in consultation with the faculty and officers of the Board of Trustees of Southern Seminary.

Now that sounds like a pretty thorough investigation. And I'm thankful that someone would be so concerned about what they say they believe and do this. Next paragraph. On August 26, 2004, President R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Russell D. Moore, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology, reported to the Board officers that they find Professor Seyfried within the parameters of the abstract of principles and the Baptist faith and message.

Okay. How could that be? Well, the only way I could understand that would be that he retracts what he said, that he renounces what he said. So maybe that's what will be in the next paragraph. I continue.

Professor Seyfried affirms the forensic justification of an alien righteousness to the believer in Christ. In Professor Seyfried's view, this means the imputation of the obedience of Christ to all who are in Christ.

Professor Seyfried further affirms that this righteousness is received through faith alone, below is Professor Seyfried's clarification of his views on the doctrine of justification. And that's it. Nowhere in here are we going to see a single citation of any of the quotes that I read for you earlier in the program.

Not once. Not once. Not one time. And see, that's what is so troubling about this, is that all I was trying to do, and going to continue to try to do, despite taking it on the chin for even making the attempt, is to bring some clarity to this issue.

When you stand in the pulpit and you proclaim the gospel, what are you proclaiming? Are we really going to be stuck with nothing more than the four spiritual laws eventually? Because scholarship tells us, well, we can't really be certain about that.

Well, you know, there's a lot of views on that, too. Oh, that's a difficult text over there. That's a tough one. Are we just going to be left with a ooshy-gooshy-mushy message that has no substance to it?

We need to have clarity. This statement doesn't help produce clarity in any way, shape, or form. And that is very, very troubling. I had hoped, since we had heard about this before it came out, that maybe, maybe it would open dialogue.

Maybe it would bring clarification. Maybe there would be a statement, you know what? We weren't aware of this, and we've come to this understanding, and here's what we say, and that's not what we got.

Dr. Seifried then quotes from the abstract. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal to sinners who believe in Christ. From all sins, the satisfaction that Christ has made, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith.

That's the same section that I had demonstrated, that if you actually go to what Boyce said, who is behind the writing of these things, that included the act of impassive obedience to Christ. Then Dr. Seifried says, I was absolutely shocked and dismayed to learn in recent days that someone has so misconstrued my writings that they imagine I have abandoned a Reformational understanding of justification.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The heart and thrust of my writing and teaching on the justifying work of God and Christ has been the defense and elaboration of a proper Biblical and Reformational understanding of the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.

Well, you know, it's funny. You read Dr. Seifried's book, you read his chapter in the new book, and I can understand what he's saying here. You see, because he views the idea of imputation as a later development, after the Reformation.

And so, where did I ever say, within his vocabulary, that he had abandoned a Reformational understanding of justification? I just simply said the facts. I quoted him, and his words say X, and the abstract says Y, and you put the two together and go, hmm.

Okay? So, I don't understand the shock and dismay, because if he's read my blog articles, then he would know exactly who I was referring to, and that I bent over backwards to adequately and completely quote the context that I was dealing with.

I mean, you put them all together, and I quoted about three or four pages, and that's the whole discussion. I quoted stuff that I did not necessarily have to, for the meaning to be clear, but I did it anyway.

From my work on my doctoral dissertation until the present hour, I have been a decided opponent of the so-called new perspective on Paul, which I regard as a serious deviation from the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ.

Anyone who has read my work will recognize that no one has been more adamantly opposed to the new perspective than I have been and continue to be. That's wonderful, but I never said anything that could even be slightly construed as saying otherwise.

That's why, again, I really have to wonder, did anyone bother to read what was said? Where did I say this is new perspectivism? I said the book is recommended as a response to new perspectivism. But you see, what Dr. Seifert needs to understand is one of the things that bothers some of us folks the most about the new perspective, especially in N .T. Wright, is his denial of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

And so you get to the end of a book that you think was a response to new perspective, and it is in many areas, in many of the fundamental issues of new perspectivism, and then all of a sudden it seems, and this is what caused the pastor to ask me these questions, it seems that you're all of a sudden taking a left-hand turn that was not expected.

So, there's no reason for being shocked and dismayed that someone's going to respond to what you put in print, especially when you purposefully say that what Protestant orthodoxy has believed is not biblical.

Are those of us who happen to believe that type of stuff supposed to go, okay, that's fine? Why be shocked and dismayed? Why be shocked and dismayed at an accurate representation of your own words? That I don't understand.

And why bother with this stuff about new perspectivism? Because no one made that assertion, no one made that argument. So far we're not doing too good. And then it gets worse, the next paragraph. It is highly regrettable that someone who professes to be a Christian made no effort to ensure that he understood what I have written before he brought serious charges against me in a public forum.

And that, followed by a discussion that not once documents a single misrepresentation on my part. If you're going to say I blew it, then how about proving it? Is that too much to ask? You know, I mean, that's a standard I've followed my entire life.

If I say my opponent has misrepresented something, I get this strange, odd feeling that I now need to prove it. That's what you have to do in debate if you want to do it properly. And so here we have this accusation against me, now put in public, that I don't understand what he said.

Well, isn't it interesting, I guess John Piper doesn't understand what he said. I guess Robert Gundry doesn't understand what he said. And I have to ask, has Southern put out statements in response to Piper and Gundry?

Because if they haven't, then this is grossly hypocritical. This is just wrong. You don't accuse someone of misconstruing you, then not bother to quote them once, not bother to demonstrate their misunderstanding at any point, provide no documentation, and ignore books that have been written.